Support your president, he needs all the help he can get.
- Thread starter Dre L
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Q, the Red Cross was refused entry into New Orleans by the local officials until everyone was nearly evacuated. At that point, they decided that it wasn't worth it for them to go in. Where does that leave the donations they collected from us? The same place all the 9-11 money is, in their bank account. :angry:
Gary L
Active Member
Men i missed this thread:lol:
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Fred,
So he REFUSED to order a MANDATORY evacuation. A MANDATORY evacuation that would have been as impossible to enforce then as it is now. (They can't even get everyone out NOW with the National Guard involved.) I remember there was a recommendation people evacuate prior to the storm. But I guess you need to order an impossibility to be considered all right.
Give me a break. The problem is only partly that they people weren't gotten out. Another (and larger) part of the problem is it took so damned long to get the emergency help mobilized after the storm had done its worst. Why? The law doesn't allow for mobilizing the relief effort until after the fact. The law doesn't allow the US Government to act until requested by the Governor of the State who, by law, cannot make a request until there is a need - ie: after the disaster.
What needs to change is the law. It should allow for proactive mobilization rather than reactive. It should allow the President to order that mobilization without the request of the State Governor if there is a clear and present danger. We can pre-emptively strike Iraq, but we can't pre-emptively prepare for disaster relief for our own citizens. That's pretty damned stupid if you ask me.
After the disaster, the Governor was definitely too slow to request aid. That is her failing. But was there anything FEMA or Pres Bush could have done to hurry her up or start preparing for a request they knew would be coming? I really do not have an answer to that, but I would like to know why, and what we could change to prevent this in the future.
I personally think this whole episode shows a servere problem with the way we handle natural disasters. And rather than try to place blame we need to fix the problem so it is handled a lot better the next time.
And once more I say - if the Mayor and Governor had been Republicans and the President a Democrat (Clinton - either one) would anyone be so quick to condemn and/or defend? (And I am addressing both sides of this discussion.)
Somehow I doubt it.
So he REFUSED to order a MANDATORY evacuation. A MANDATORY evacuation that would have been as impossible to enforce then as it is now. (They can't even get everyone out NOW with the National Guard involved.) I remember there was a recommendation people evacuate prior to the storm. But I guess you need to order an impossibility to be considered all right.
Give me a break. The problem is only partly that they people weren't gotten out. Another (and larger) part of the problem is it took so damned long to get the emergency help mobilized after the storm had done its worst. Why? The law doesn't allow for mobilizing the relief effort until after the fact. The law doesn't allow the US Government to act until requested by the Governor of the State who, by law, cannot make a request until there is a need - ie: after the disaster.
What needs to change is the law. It should allow for proactive mobilization rather than reactive. It should allow the President to order that mobilization without the request of the State Governor if there is a clear and present danger. We can pre-emptively strike Iraq, but we can't pre-emptively prepare for disaster relief for our own citizens. That's pretty damned stupid if you ask me.
After the disaster, the Governor was definitely too slow to request aid. That is her failing. But was there anything FEMA or Pres Bush could have done to hurry her up or start preparing for a request they knew would be coming? I really do not have an answer to that, but I would like to know why, and what we could change to prevent this in the future.
I personally think this whole episode shows a servere problem with the way we handle natural disasters. And rather than try to place blame we need to fix the problem so it is handled a lot better the next time.
And once more I say - if the Mayor and Governor had been Republicans and the President a Democrat (Clinton - either one) would anyone be so quick to condemn and/or defend? (And I am addressing both sides of this discussion.)
Somehow I doubt it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale Carter
Active Member
Regarding the $ 2000 debit cards - I have already seen a person buy an Ipod and PS2 here in Atlanta, hardly necessary to rebuild ones life. Also, if a person gets MY TAX MONEY, I have a right to say how it may be spent! "My" and "I" representing the collective taxpayers, of course.
They did not earn, nor do they deserve, the card. That is the nature of a gift, neither earned or deserved.
$ 2,000 is designed to provide political warm-fuzzies and make us all feel bettter. It will provide expenses for a displaced family of four to last MAYBE one month. If they are in free housing, a few weeks longer.
Regarding all the displaced poor folks from New Orleans making a new start. You could give each of them $ 100,000 and I would wager that 95% of them would be flat broke in less than 24 months. The same bad decision making that got them where they were will see that money vanish in record time. Spare me the whiny liberal nonsense about "less fortunate" and all that, poverty in America is caused, almost 100% of the time, by the sum of an individuals decisions over a lifetime. Witness the numerous lottery winners who file bankruptcy within a few years.
Let me head of some of the oncoming criticism. I may be a cold hearted bastard, but I am a correct cold hearted bastard.
They did not earn, nor do they deserve, the card. That is the nature of a gift, neither earned or deserved.
$ 2,000 is designed to provide political warm-fuzzies and make us all feel bettter. It will provide expenses for a displaced family of four to last MAYBE one month. If they are in free housing, a few weeks longer.
Regarding all the displaced poor folks from New Orleans making a new start. You could give each of them $ 100,000 and I would wager that 95% of them would be flat broke in less than 24 months. The same bad decision making that got them where they were will see that money vanish in record time. Spare me the whiny liberal nonsense about "less fortunate" and all that, poverty in America is caused, almost 100% of the time, by the sum of an individuals decisions over a lifetime. Witness the numerous lottery winners who file bankruptcy within a few years.
Let me head of some of the oncoming criticism. I may be a cold hearted bastard, but I am a correct cold hearted bastard.
A bank can "sell" (loan) you money. The bank can also ask you what you are going to do with that money. If you tell them I am going to party, get a tatoo, and buy some love for a lady of the street, the bank will say, Sorry.
Reminds me of a family in my neighborhood that lost thier home by a fire. It was in the summer right before school started. They were standing outside thier home with thier underwear on. They were able to get out alive, but that was all they got.
Mom and Dad told my sister and myself to go home and get the kids some clothing and shoes. So my sister and I took our shoes off and gave them to the kids. We went home and went into our clothes drawers and picked them out a pair of pants, a shirt, and a pair of socks. We ran back to give it to them. They were very happy we did that and said "thank you" The comotion settled down and we went home. The family had a talk. We decided, as a family, to give them money to help them with thier loss. After going to the bank to withdrawl money, we paid them a visit. They were sitting outside the house with two cases of beer and a carton of cigarettes. Dad seen that and out the money he pulled out for them back into his pocket.
I will never forget what he said. "If they can afford beer and cigarettes when the kids do not have clothing to wear, they don't need my help".
As a tax payer, I should decide how they should spend my money. Alcohol and tobacco is not a staple for life. Food and water is. Clothing is. Alcohol and tobacco isn't.
Use the money wisely. If you need money to buy gas to go to work, I will put gas in your tank, I will not give you the money. You need to go somewhere and have no money to get there, I will take you. I will not give you the money.
If you really need the money to buy gas, you will be more then happy for someone to buy it for you. If you are angry because of that, you did not want to buy the gas in the first place.
Tom
Reminds me of a family in my neighborhood that lost thier home by a fire. It was in the summer right before school started. They were standing outside thier home with thier underwear on. They were able to get out alive, but that was all they got.
Mom and Dad told my sister and myself to go home and get the kids some clothing and shoes. So my sister and I took our shoes off and gave them to the kids. We went home and went into our clothes drawers and picked them out a pair of pants, a shirt, and a pair of socks. We ran back to give it to them. They were very happy we did that and said "thank you" The comotion settled down and we went home. The family had a talk. We decided, as a family, to give them money to help them with thier loss. After going to the bank to withdrawl money, we paid them a visit. They were sitting outside the house with two cases of beer and a carton of cigarettes. Dad seen that and out the money he pulled out for them back into his pocket.
I will never forget what he said. "If they can afford beer and cigarettes when the kids do not have clothing to wear, they don't need my help".
As a tax payer, I should decide how they should spend my money. Alcohol and tobacco is not a staple for life. Food and water is. Clothing is. Alcohol and tobacco isn't.
Use the money wisely. If you need money to buy gas to go to work, I will put gas in your tank, I will not give you the money. You need to go somewhere and have no money to get there, I will take you. I will not give you the money.
If you really need the money to buy gas, you will be more then happy for someone to buy it for you. If you are angry because of that, you did not want to buy the gas in the first place.
Tom
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
About the the calls for Emergency response from local and state government....Wasn't it reported that when FEMA came in, and they were there within 48 hrs to set up an office and start the overview of damage. They cut the local emergency lines that were ALREADY in place to hook up their own?
Also, the mayor had a huge resposiblity to act for the good of his citizens-- evacuation should have started 3 days before that storm hit..Using every possible means of transportation the city had, and called for more in advance to help. Not everybody refused to leave, some were passed by.
The debit cards were issued as just that a debit card.
Also, the mayor had a huge resposiblity to act for the good of his citizens-- evacuation should have started 3 days before that storm hit..Using every possible means of transportation the city had, and called for more in advance to help. Not everybody refused to leave, some were passed by.
The debit cards were issued as just that a debit card.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dale Carter says:
Dale, what country do you live in? Once the money is removed from your paycheck then you have no control. Yes, you have the "right" to voice your opinion, but don't expect that single voice to matter that much.
You agree with others that the debit card isn't earned, nor is it deserved, but it is a gift. So, as a gift, do you still think you have the "right" to say how the money is used? Do you do the same thing each Christmas when giving "gifts"?
Your statements are somewhat contradictory from that standpoint, I think (you want to be able to say how the money is used, but you want the money to be considered a gift).
I would HOPE that people use the money wisely, and I would HOPE that our goverment puts our tax dollars collected to good use. But, I recognize that thinking I have any real control over either is akin to peeing in the wind. The best I can do is be part of that loud buzz that complains about things....and if that buzz is loud enough things change.
I wish I had a line-item veto for such things, but I do not.
I am not a cold-hearted bastard, or a bleeding heart liberal...I am simply a realist.
TJR
Dale, what country do you live in? Once the money is removed from your paycheck then you have no control. Yes, you have the "right" to voice your opinion, but don't expect that single voice to matter that much.
You agree with others that the debit card isn't earned, nor is it deserved, but it is a gift. So, as a gift, do you still think you have the "right" to say how the money is used? Do you do the same thing each Christmas when giving "gifts"?
Your statements are somewhat contradictory from that standpoint, I think (you want to be able to say how the money is used, but you want the money to be considered a gift).
I would HOPE that people use the money wisely, and I would HOPE that our goverment puts our tax dollars collected to good use. But, I recognize that thinking I have any real control over either is akin to peeing in the wind. The best I can do is be part of that loud buzz that complains about things....and if that buzz is loud enough things change.
I wish I had a line-item veto for such things, but I do not.
I am not a cold-hearted bastard, or a bleeding heart liberal...I am simply a realist.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
I've been gone for a week, otherwise I would have chimed in earlier... like anyone missed me anyways, right?
Rocco-
FEMA cannot go inuntil after for two reasons:
1) There is a chain of command that must be set in motion. The Mayor must ask the Govenor for help who then asks the Fed's.
2) NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is going to enter a place en mass with massive amounts of emergency supplies to become another victim.
There were Red Cross vehicles swamped in the floods. There were emergency supplies lost in the hurricane itself and in the aftermath. Why can't they be pro-active? Where in New Orleans was it safe to store 2 weeks worth of emergency supplies for 100,000 people that was still stnading when the waters receeded?
The first rule in rescue is to not become a second victim. That's why a pro-active approach is not always best.
These people may not be covered by insurance because flooding was not a standard feature of thier insurance policies. This should be the nail in the coffin for these rediculous insurance companies. They are in a capitalist society and have the right to do business as they see fit and I don't think that the government should get involved with this BUT this case is absolutely rediculous. NEW ORLEANS IS A FLOOD PLAIN AND THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE??!?!?! WTF?!?!?!
The mayor of NO dropped the ball. The Feds acted as well as they could have at this time. Could they do better in the future? Yes. Will they? ???? If you rely on the Feds to save you, you will be dissappointed. You are responcible for yourself and your familiy. A $2k "gift" card should be used for gas, shelter, food, clothes etc. but as others have said that's not always the case. As with ANY GOVERNMENT hand-out, abuse will be rampant.
This is another case why the government needs to keep their hands out of the health case business, but that's another debate.
The emergency action plan of NO was not followed precisely. Some things were done well, like using both lanes of the freeways as exits. However, the city employees many of whom were tasked to help and protect their communities left when the storm warnings were called. That was thier right, to protect themselves and their families. However, thier duty was to stay and serve the public, drive the busses etc. The people charged to help people in this case that did not, should not be returning to their jobs. This includes the Mayor and possibly the govenor of the state.
Rocco-
FEMA cannot go inuntil after for two reasons:
1) There is a chain of command that must be set in motion. The Mayor must ask the Govenor for help who then asks the Fed's.
2) NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is going to enter a place en mass with massive amounts of emergency supplies to become another victim.
There were Red Cross vehicles swamped in the floods. There were emergency supplies lost in the hurricane itself and in the aftermath. Why can't they be pro-active? Where in New Orleans was it safe to store 2 weeks worth of emergency supplies for 100,000 people that was still stnading when the waters receeded?
The first rule in rescue is to not become a second victim. That's why a pro-active approach is not always best.
These people may not be covered by insurance because flooding was not a standard feature of thier insurance policies. This should be the nail in the coffin for these rediculous insurance companies. They are in a capitalist society and have the right to do business as they see fit and I don't think that the government should get involved with this BUT this case is absolutely rediculous. NEW ORLEANS IS A FLOOD PLAIN AND THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE??!?!?! WTF?!?!?!
The mayor of NO dropped the ball. The Feds acted as well as they could have at this time. Could they do better in the future? Yes. Will they? ???? If you rely on the Feds to save you, you will be dissappointed. You are responcible for yourself and your familiy. A $2k "gift" card should be used for gas, shelter, food, clothes etc. but as others have said that's not always the case. As with ANY GOVERNMENT hand-out, abuse will be rampant.
This is another case why the government needs to keep their hands out of the health case business, but that's another debate.
The emergency action plan of NO was not followed precisely. Some things were done well, like using both lanes of the freeways as exits. However, the city employees many of whom were tasked to help and protect their communities left when the storm warnings were called. That was thier right, to protect themselves and their families. However, thier duty was to stay and serve the public, drive the busses etc. The people charged to help people in this case that did not, should not be returning to their jobs. This includes the Mayor and possibly the govenor of the state.
Dale Carter
Active Member
TJR - I specifically pointed out that I was using the terms "I" and "my" as the collective taxpayer speaking through our representatives, not me as a single person. Of course, I realize that "Dale" has no control over that money, but "we" should.
Yes, gifts can be controlled. In fact, the IRS clearly recognizes the concept of "directed gifting".
Yes, gifts can be controlled. In fact, the IRS clearly recognizes the concept of "directed gifting".
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Okay, Dale, let's put it another way. Let's say tomorrow some large-scale natural disaster hit you at your area without warning, and effectively froze your bank accounts (hypothetically), and you were relocated with only the clothes on your back. Let's further assume you were given a $2K debit card to help get you through. Would you be OKAY with being told how to spend the money?
Not everyone that was relocated is one welfare and does drugs. Some of the people had jobs, and simply stayed because they wanted to protect their belongings. Maybe they have a bank account and can rebuild and don't really need a hand-out. I still don't really see a problem with them getting $2K to use any way they wish, even if it's just to cover insurance premiums...or to buy a case a beer while in temporary housing.
If I were in their shoes, I would want the money with no strings attached. But, then again, we all would like to think that "we would never be in their shoes."
TJR
Not everyone that was relocated is one welfare and does drugs. Some of the people had jobs, and simply stayed because they wanted to protect their belongings. Maybe they have a bank account and can rebuild and don't really need a hand-out. I still don't really see a problem with them getting $2K to use any way they wish, even if it's just to cover insurance premiums...or to buy a case a beer while in temporary housing.
If I were in their shoes, I would want the money with no strings attached. But, then again, we all would like to think that "we would never be in their shoes."
TJR
Deleted deleted
Well-Known Member
back to the title of this thread... 'support your president, he needs all the help he can get'.
Well, with an approval rating dipping below 40% of the population, the guy does need help.
Well, with an approval rating dipping below 40% of the population, the guy does need help.
We all would like to think everyone thinks like up. Unfortunatly that isn't the case.
I would have no problem being given $2,000.00 and being told it is to buy clothes and food. Afterall, that is what I intended to spend that money on anyways.
The only people that would get mad about it are those that would have spent it on other things. Those that were going to spend it on food and clothing would even cmment "good for them, making sure the crack heads dont buy more crack with that money".
I know that is what I would say.
Tom
I would have no problem being given $2,000.00 and being told it is to buy clothes and food. Afterall, that is what I intended to spend that money on anyways.
The only people that would get mad about it are those that would have spent it on other things. Those that were going to spend it on food and clothing would even cmment "good for them, making sure the crack heads dont buy more crack with that money".
I know that is what I would say.
Tom
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Polls don't really mean that much. Unlike the previous president, the current has not done polls on when he should do one thing or another. 100 years from now, I do believe that Bush will be remembered more than Clinton, except for the fact that Clinton was only the second president impeached.
The details of the polls are much more important. The pollster may ask 20 questions, 18 of which may be leading questions and/or the same question in a slightly different manner. The time of the poll is important. The breakup of the pollee's.
If you have any experience with statistics and the study there of, you learn there are ways to take numbers and construe them to get the answer you want to see. At the same time, an opponent can take the SAME DATA SET and get an entirely differnt answer.
Polls are like politicians. They say one thing to one person and something different to someone else.
The details of the polls are much more important. The pollster may ask 20 questions, 18 of which may be leading questions and/or the same question in a slightly different manner. The time of the poll is important. The breakup of the pollee's.
If you have any experience with statistics and the study there of, you learn there are ways to take numbers and construe them to get the answer you want to see. At the same time, an opponent can take the SAME DATA SET and get an entirely differnt answer.
Polls are like politicians. They say one thing to one person and something different to someone else.
Deleted deleted
Well-Known Member
R Shek: You are quite correct on polls and how they can be construed to get a particular answer.
And yes we can only count 2 presidents being impeached, since Nixon resigned from office rather than face impeachment.
100 years from now, the only thing Bush will be remembered for is being the president in office during the 09/11 attacks. He pales in comparison to the greats of the past 100 years, T. Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan.
And yes we can only count 2 presidents being impeached, since Nixon resigned from office rather than face impeachment.
100 years from now, the only thing Bush will be remembered for is being the president in office during the 09/11 attacks. He pales in comparison to the greats of the past 100 years, T. Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen says:
As a taxpayer who has paid more than my fair share to support the social programs of this govt for the past 25 years, I would be PLENTY PO'ed if I were given that debit card and told you can spend this money ONLY on X, Y, and Z.
A few years back Bush gave us all $600 of our own money back to help us, and our country through a difficult time. That money didn't have any restrictions associated with it. How many here spent them on mods?
TJR
As a taxpayer who has paid more than my fair share to support the social programs of this govt for the past 25 years, I would be PLENTY PO'ed if I were given that debit card and told you can spend this money ONLY on X, Y, and Z.
A few years back Bush gave us all $600 of our own money back to help us, and our country through a difficult time. That money didn't have any restrictions associated with it. How many here spent them on mods?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale Carter
Active Member
Tom (Caymen) said it pretty well, but I will toss in a few cents worth in reply.
No warning? I knew it was likely to hit New Orleans on Thursday, that is why I didn't board up my girlfriends place in Destin. Pretty sure I could get away with three days notice with more than the clothes on my back. I guess I am the rare individual that knows to RUN from the biggest storm of my lifetime.
BTW, people in my state get hit by natural disasters that truly have little to no warning, tornados. You live in Tornado Alley (aka Tennessee Valley), you plan ahead. Hmmmm, what a concept. Even the poor folks, and there are lots of them in rural north Alabama, know what to do.
Unless you bank with a firm with only one location, your money is available. If you have checks, it is still available. Credit cards are available to damn near everyone, especially the hard working citizens you describe. Not a great solution, but they will feed, clothe and house you to save your life.
Yes, if someone said they would give me $ 2000 and the only requirement was to spend it on clothing, food, shelter and transportation, I would accept it gladly. If I was not okay with directed spending, I would not accept it. The difference is that I understand that I, and only I, am responsible for ME, no matter what happens. Period.
Order of Resposibility for Dale;
Dale ---> Local Govt ---> State Govt ---> Federal Govt ---> Santa Claus ---->Tooth Fairy :lol:
No warning? I knew it was likely to hit New Orleans on Thursday, that is why I didn't board up my girlfriends place in Destin. Pretty sure I could get away with three days notice with more than the clothes on my back. I guess I am the rare individual that knows to RUN from the biggest storm of my lifetime.
BTW, people in my state get hit by natural disasters that truly have little to no warning, tornados. You live in Tornado Alley (aka Tennessee Valley), you plan ahead. Hmmmm, what a concept. Even the poor folks, and there are lots of them in rural north Alabama, know what to do.
Unless you bank with a firm with only one location, your money is available. If you have checks, it is still available. Credit cards are available to damn near everyone, especially the hard working citizens you describe. Not a great solution, but they will feed, clothe and house you to save your life.
Yes, if someone said they would give me $ 2000 and the only requirement was to spend it on clothing, food, shelter and transportation, I would accept it gladly. If I was not okay with directed spending, I would not accept it. The difference is that I understand that I, and only I, am responsible for ME, no matter what happens. Period.
Order of Resposibility for Dale;
Dale ---> Local Govt ---> State Govt ---> Federal Govt ---> Santa Claus ---->Tooth Fairy :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dude, I mean, Dale, the basis of a hypothetical is that you can't debate the scenario of the hypothetical. I asked in the context of a hypothetical to see what you would do in that situation, not to debate if you could get in that situation or the liklihood of that situation occurring.
I tried, unsuccessfully, to place you readers in the shoes of some of these evacuees. It seems the old adage "But for the grace of God go I", is lost today.
As Chris Rock said: "There are people who couldn't get in their SUVs and drive to a nice hotel." We can debate and discuss and even be angry with the people that didn't have the means to leave the area and therefore need our help now. But that doesn't do any good. All we should really do is HELP THEM NOW, and giving them money with strings attached isn't the way I would choose to help them.
TJR
I tried, unsuccessfully, to place you readers in the shoes of some of these evacuees. It seems the old adage "But for the grace of God go I", is lost today.
As Chris Rock said: "There are people who couldn't get in their SUVs and drive to a nice hotel." We can debate and discuss and even be angry with the people that didn't have the means to leave the area and therefore need our help now. But that doesn't do any good. All we should really do is HELP THEM NOW, and giving them money with strings attached isn't the way I would choose to help them.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Dre L
Well-Known Member
Jeez, you guys are still posting to this?
TJR said:
That money was given to us as a tax break. It was not given to us to help rebuild our lives.
There is a big difference.
Those people need a new place to live, new clothing, food, etc. They should not be allowed to spend it anyway they want. They shouuld spend it in the things I mentioned above and not for a new XBox or Play Station. They do not need the money to buy alcohol or tobacco or even lottery tickets. They need to rebuild thier lives. Last time I checked, I don't need anything to live besides gas for my car, food for my belly, clothes on my back, and a place to live. Nobody needs an XBox, TV, CD's, DVD's, or anything like that to live. They need a home, food, water, clothing, etc.
Tom
That money was given to us as a tax break. It was not given to us to help rebuild our lives.
There is a big difference.
Those people need a new place to live, new clothing, food, etc. They should not be allowed to spend it anyway they want. They shouuld spend it in the things I mentioned above and not for a new XBox or Play Station. They do not need the money to buy alcohol or tobacco or even lottery tickets. They need to rebuild thier lives. Last time I checked, I don't need anything to live besides gas for my car, food for my belly, clothes on my back, and a place to live. Nobody needs an XBox, TV, CD's, DVD's, or anything like that to live. They need a home, food, water, clothing, etc.
Tom
